Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID 313
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-01827-N
`
`DEFENDANT ZTE (USA), INC.’S ANSWER
`TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE (USA)”) responds to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
`
`as follows. This Answer is solely on behalf of ZTE (USA) and is not on behalf of Defendant
`
`ZTE Corporation or Defendant ZTE (TX), Inc.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the same.
`
`2.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that ZTE Corporation is organized and existing under the laws
`
`of China with its principal place of business at No. 55, Hitech Road South, Shenzhen, China
`
`518057. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 1
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID 314
`
`4.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that ZTE (USA) Inc. is a New Jersey corporation. ZTE
`
`(USA) admits that ZTE (USA) Inc. sells consumer electronics. Except as expressly admitted,
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that ZTE (TX) is a Texas corporation. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint express legal conclusions to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, ZTE (USA) admits that
`
`it identifies with the trade name “ZTE.” ZTE (USA) admits that it sells products in the United
`
`States. ZTE (USA) specifically denies that ZTE (USA) has committed acts of infringement
`
`under any theory of infringement in this judicial district or elsewhere in the United States.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint express legal
`
`conclusions to which no response is required.
`
`8.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint express legal
`
`conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, ZTE
`
`(USA) admits that ZTE (USA) conducts business in Texas and maintains a facility and
`
`employees within Texas. ZTE (USA) specifically denies that ZTE (USA) has committed acts of
`
`infringement under any theory of infringement in this judicial district or elsewhere in the United
`
`States. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 2
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID 315
`
`9.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that venue is proper in this judicial district. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`12.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint express legal
`
`conclusions and claim language, there has been no claim construction order in this action, and
`
`thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, ZTE (USA) denies every
`
`allegation in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint express legal
`
`conclusions and claim language, there has been no claim construction order in this action, and
`
`thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, ZTE (USA) denies every
`
`allegation in paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint express legal
`
`conclusions and claim language, there has been no claim construction order in this action, and
`
`thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, ZTE (USA) denies every
`
`allegation in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 3
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID 316
`
`17.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that Plaintiff sent a letter dated December 11, 2016, addressed
`
`to Jim Wang. ZTE (USA) further admits that it has received Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended
`
`Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of
`
`the Amended Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`([Alleged] Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766)
`
`22.
`
`ZTE (USA) incorporates by reference each of its responses set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 21 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint appears to be a
`
`copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,232,766 (“the ’766 patent”). ZTE (USA) admits that the face of
`
`Exhibit A shows the title “Multifunctional Charger System and Method.” ZTE (USA) admits that
`
`the face of Exhibit A states that the ’766 patent issued on July 31, 2012. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that the face of Exhibit A indicates that the ’766 patent names
`
`Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher, Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T.
`
`Malton as inventors. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in
`
`paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 4
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID 317
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`([Alleged] Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586)
`
`32.
`
`ZTE (USA) incorporates by reference each of its responses set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 31 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that Exhibit B to the Amended Complaint appears to be a
`
`copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586 (“the ’586 patent”). ZTE (USA) admits that the face of
`
`Exhibit B shows the title “Multifunctional Charger System and Method.” ZTE (USA) admits that
`
`the face of Exhibit B states that the ’586 patent issued on November 16, 2010. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`34.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that the face of Exhibit B indicates that the ’586 patent names
`
`Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher, Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T.
`
`Malton as inventors. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in
`
`paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`36.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`5
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 5
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID 318
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies every allegation in paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`([Alleged] Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111)
`
`42.
`
`ZTE (USA) incorporates by reference each of its responses set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 41 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that Exhibit C to the Amended Complaint appears to be a
`
`copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111 (“the ’111 patent”). ZTE (USA) admits that the face of
`
`Exhibit C shows the title “Universal Serial Bus Adapter For A Mobile Device.” ZTE (USA)
`
`admits that the face of Exhibit C indicates that the ’111 patent issued on July 3, 2007. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that the face of Exhibit C indicates that the ’111 patent names
`
`Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher, Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T.
`
`Malton as inventors. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in
`
`paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`6
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 6
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID 319
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`([Alleged] Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550)
`
`52.
`
`ZTE (USA) incorporates by reference each of its responses set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 to 51 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`53.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that Exhibit D to the Amended Complaint appears to be a
`
`copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 (“the ’550 patent”). ZTE (USA) admits that the face of
`
`Exhibit D shows the title “Multifunctional Charger System and Method.” ZTE (USA) admits
`
`that the face of Exhibit D states that the ’550 patent issued on January 7, 2014. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 53 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that the face of Exhibit D indicates that the ’550 patent names
`
`Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher, Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T.
`
`Malton as inventors. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in
`
`paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`7
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 7
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID 320
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`([Alleged] Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,893,655)
`
`
`
`62.
`ZTE (USA) incorporates by reference each of its responses set forth in paragraphs
`1 to 61 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that Exhibit E to the Amended Complaint appears to be a copy
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,893,655 (“the ’655 patent”). ZTE (USA) admits that the face of Exhibit E
`
`shows the title “Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices.” ZTE (USA) admits that the
`
`face of Exhibit E states that the ’550 patent issued on February 22, 2011. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`64.
`
`ZTE (USA) admits that the face of Exhibit E indicates that the ’655 patent names
`
`Dusan Veselic as inventor. Except as expressly admitted, ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in
`
`paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`ZTE (USA) lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 68 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 69 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 70 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`ZTE (USA) denies the allegations in paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 8
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID 321
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`ZTE (USA) denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from ZTE (USA) and denies the
`
`allegations in paragraphs (A)-(G) of the “Prayer for Relief” section of the Amended Complaint.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`To the extent any response is required: Denied, except that ZTE (USA) below demands a
`
`trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`ZTE (USA) alleges and asserts the following defenses upon information and belief in
`
`response to the allegations in the Amended Complaint.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`1.
`
`ZTE (USA) does not and has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,111 (“the ’111 patent”), 7,834,586 (“the ’586 patent”), 8,232,766 (“the
`
`’766 patent”), 8,624,550 (“the ’550 patent”) and 7,893,655 (“the ’655 patent”) (collectively, “the
`
`Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`2.
`
`The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and/or void for failure to comply
`
`with one or more conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code,
`
`including, but not limited to, Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by prosecution history estoppel.
`
`Plaintiff is estopped, based on statements, representations, and admissions made during the
`
`prosecution before the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the patent families resulting
`
`
`
`9
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 9
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID 322
`
`in the Patents-in-Suit from asserting that ZTE (USA) has infringed, directly or indirectly, any
`
`valid and otherwise enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Estoppel)
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by estoppel, including without
`
`limitation equitable estoppel. Plaintiff and/or the alleged prior holders of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`misled ZTE (USA) through words, conduct, and/or silence to reasonably infer that the Patents-
`
`in-Suit would not be enforced against ZTE (USA)’s and other implementers of USB standards.
`
`ZTE (USA) detrimentally relied on these words, conduct, and/or silence, and would be
`
`materially prejudiced if Plaintiff, the current alleged holder of the Patents-in-Suit, was permitted
`
`to proceed with a claim against ZTE (USA) for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Licensing and/or Exhaustion)
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in part (i) to
`
`the extent that any allegedly infringing products or components thereof are supplied, directly or
`
`indirectly, to ZTE (USA) by (or by ZTE (USA) to) any entity or entities having express or
`
`implied licenses to the Patents-in-Suit and/or (ii) under the doctrine of patent exhaustion.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(Unenforceability)
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part under principles of equity, including
`
`prosecution laches, prosecution history estoppel and disclaimer, waiver, estoppel, and/or unclean
`
`hands.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages, Failure to Mark)
`
`
`
`10
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 10
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID 323
`
`7.
`
`Any claim by Plaintiff for damages is limited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 or 287.
`
`Plaintiff is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 287 from recovering damages prior to the date of the filing
`
`of the Complaint. Plaintiff is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering costs associated with its
`
`action.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(No Basis for Injunctive Relief)
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief against ZTE (USA) at least because, on
`
`information and belief: (1) Plaintiff is not competing with ZTE (USA); (2) Plaintiff is not
`
`practicing any alleged invention of the Patents-in-Suit; (3) Plaintiff has not suffered irreparable
`
`harm; and/or (4) Plaintiff has an adequate remedy (to the extent it is entitled to any remedy,
`
`which ZTE (USA) denies).
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)
`
`9.
`
`The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(No Exceptional Case)
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff cannot prove that this is an exceptional case that would justify an award
`
`of attorney fees against ZTE (USA) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by its failure to mitigate
`
`damages.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`12.
`
`ZTE (USA) reserves the right to assert additional defenses as may be warranted
`
`by discovery or further factual investigations in this action.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 11
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID 324
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`13.
`
`ZTE (USA) demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`ZTE (USA) respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Plaintiff as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Adjudging that ZTE (USA) has not infringed any claim of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`Adjudging that the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid;
`
`Dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice, denying every prayer for
`
`relief in the Amended Complaint, and entering judgment for ZTE (USA);
`
`D.
`
`Declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding ZTE (USA) its costs and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees in defending this action; and
`
`E.
`
`Granting ZTE (USA) such other and further relief as the Court may deem
`
`necessary, just, or proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 12
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID 325
`
`Dated: July 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Calli Turner
`Charles M. McMahon (admission pending)
`Hersh H. Mehta (admission pending)
`Michael Hemes (admission pending)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`444 West Lake Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(312) 372-2000
`
`Jay H. Reiziss (admission pending)
`Michael S. Nadel (admission pending)
`Natalie A. Bennett (admission pending)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`(202) 758-8000
`
`Calli Turner
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street Suite 1900
`Dallas, TX 75201-1664
`(214) 295-8056
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE (TX) Inc.
`
`
`13
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 13
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`

`

`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01827-N Document 46 Filed 07/31/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID 326
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on July 31, 2017, the foregoing was electronically filed with the
`
`CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing to all counsel of record, including
`as follows:
`
`
`S. Calvin Capshaw, Esq.
`Capshaw Derieux LLP
`114 East Commerce Avenue
`Gladewater, Texas 75647
`
`Edward J. DeFranco, Esq.
`Brian P. Biddinger, Esq.
`Joseph Milowic III, Esq.
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`
`
`
`
`
`DM_US 83455717-1.097245.0019
`
` s/ Calli Turner
` Calli Turner
`
`
`
`14
`
`Fundamental Ex 2030-p. 14
`ZTE v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00111
`
`